User talk:DGG/Archive 165 Oct. 2020

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Greetings DGG,

I received your message on my talk page, thank you for this notification.

I would like to sincerely invite you and your friends/colleagues/associates to help our wikipedia community to improve the article on decentralized finance.

Over the past few months, I have been learning about this topic, and I find it to be a fascinating field that seems to deserve its own article.

In particular, the reduction of risk via stablecoins as well as smart contract insurance seem to potentially allow institutional investors such as pension funds and others to begin to benefit from blockchain and distributed ledger technologies.

Please be aware that, before I created the article, I carefully considered if the topic/field of decentralized finance could be adequately described within another related article. At this point, it seems unlikely.

Also, please be aware that my intention in creating this short stub article was to bring it to the attention of a few editors here in order to seed the collaboration process.

I wish that I currently had time to develop this into a proper article. Since I do not, I am requesting collaboration, so that we can begin to provide credible information on this topic via wikipedia.

Cheers, Daniel.inform (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work in this area. You are more likely to receive helpful advice from David Gerard, who rescued the article, or at WP:WikiProject Cryptocurrency DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello David,

I hope you are well. I am new to navigating wikipedia so please forgive me if this is not the correct approach. I work in the marketing team at Fragomen and we recently learned that our page has been deleted by yourself for unambiguous advertising:

09:59, 25 August 2020 DGG talk contribs deleted page Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

We were hoping to get the page re-instated and also get the link put back into this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_law_firms_by_revenue

I would be really happy to discuss and can work on any edits required in order to remove the text that is advertising the firm. I have created a profile for editing and can do this asap.

Please let me know next steps and how I can help to get this page back online as my firm values the unbiased integrity of wikipedia and feel we are at a loss without a presence on the tool.

Many thanks, Karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtfulCreativity247 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThoughtfulCreativity247

The usual general reply is, that If your firm values the unbiased integrity of Wikipedia it should wait until someone unconected with the firm decides as volunteer to write an article. If we let firms write their own articles, the integrity would soon disappear.

But more specifically, the draft reads, " and is recognized [1]as the world's largest firm that focuses its practice solely on global immigration law.", where ref 1 refers to US News Best Law Firms, which is not considered a very reliable source.

However, If you are such a firm, unless you do a purely routine practice, you will have been involved in a least some major precedent-setting cases in several countries, cases important enough to have WP articles about them. What are they? If you can show this, there might indeed be a possibility for an article, and if they are important enough, I might even help you write it.

There is, btw, a custom here that even when people disclose their real names, we use their Wikipedia names DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I note that you have deleted the above article. Can you please reinstate the article which is important as it describes the group's activities to promote the Punjabi language and history online thereby engaging people from Punjab Pakistan and Punjab India. The club organises lectures by people from around the world. Given the difficulty in people being able to be physically present in either Punjab, the club provides a platform for people to engage and promote the language and history.

Thank you.

(Malikhpur) 07:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested it for deletion. The admin who actually deleted the article is GB fan. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cant enough thank you @DGG: for reviewing my article Shanta Hublikar. Many of my articles are still waiting even after months. But thanks a lot sir. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 NinadMysuru (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PayU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination) you wrote: "I have a non-specialist awareness of the general situation, and am very aware of the policy implications". What is the "general situation", and what are the policy implications? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the general situation is the manner in which we can use oral and non traditional sources in WP. The policy questions are cultural bias, NPOV, and , especially, WP:V,. An additional consideration is whether the nature of the discussion requires starting over. As for any assumption about which way I am thinking, I have, as usual, written rationales for several different conclusions to see what is best. As I consider this a test case, . I am equally concerned with trying to give my view about how articles such as this should be handled. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I nominated a few similar articles and had two editors question my motivations here. There was absolutely no ill intentions to my AFDs, and before nominating these articles (I withdrew one), I searched WT:BIO for any previous discussions about the notability of American Indians, and looked online for sources to support notability and improve the article. If you have a moment, please look through the edit history at Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, where you will see I spent much time improving the article and then working towards its "good article" status. Please also have a look at this satellite image of Pletcher Road, which leads to the former LOOW site, and see how at one time it appears to have been a two-lane road. In fact, it was a two-lane road, and the reason for this was because they didn't want trucks carrying radioactive waste to smash head-on into each other on the way to and from the dump. How do I know this? Someone who used to work there told me. Unfortunately, I could not find any source to support this likely fact, so I could not add that to the article, because like many editors, I follow the rules that have been agreed upon by consensus so the quality and reliability of Wikipedia remains high for its readers. I don't always like that, and it is unfortunate some histories have a plethora of detail while others have little, but that is a reality I cannot change. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to recognize the degree of reliability in oral sources. In the example you gave just above, had it not been merely "a person who works there" but "the engineer in charge", I'd say to possibly use it, certainly if we had name and date, especially if it is congruent with the spatial data. We normally use a person's account of his childhood in a university oral history; it may well contain significant omissions, especially if released during their lifetime, but I think readers realize it. What a person says his grandmother told him, is much less likely to be reliable. In the passage through generations, things tend to get amplified --or forgotten. "My father, your grandfather, ran for congress" may mean that he often talked about how he would like to have run for congress. Formal oral records of non-literate groups recited by specialists are a special case; they often match written and archeological data to some degree, but not completely. The bestcurrent is to say in the text where the accounts come from, assume people with common sense will draw reasonable conclsions, and never state possibly disputable facts in the lead or in WP's voice.

The people questioning motivations reflect more on them than on you. But to avoid such problems , when I wish to nominate a groups of closely related articles, I nominate the weakest, and judge from the result how to handle the others. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Most of my AFDs are to garage bands and rap musicians, where the response is quite different. All the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoosierdaddyblue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Timothy Greer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm interested in editing my draft for Timothy Greer but it seems to have been deleted. How can I access it?

Hoosierdaddyblue (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can now see, it's back . DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you nominated a page I recently created, Hydro Flask, for speedy deletion. I am quite confident that the page need not be deleted and I have contested it as prompted, but I thought I would attach my response here as well for you to see.

Honestly, I struggle to understand why this page has been nominated for speedy deletion. First of all, I have no connection to this company--I do not even use their products nor do I want to. Every single statement I made in this article is supported by at least one independent, reliable source, with the exception of Hydro Flask's tagline, which is supported by their website. This company is undoubtedly notable, as evidenced by the coverage of it which can be found in my references. The only thing I can think of is that this is about the beginning of the article mentioning the popularity and quality, but that too is supported by reliable sources and is not my attempt to make their brand sound cool.

Los Angeles Times: "Now we’re in the era of must-have water bottle." "A Hydro Flask has become the kind of gift that can send a tween into paroxysms of joy." How it distinguished itself from any other bottle at sporting goods stores and became a hot fashion accessory is a story about the convergence of several cultural threads: anxiety about the environment, a surge in attention to self-care and wellness, and the simple desire to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold."

CNN: "The Hydro Flask craze is in full swing. It seems wherever you go, there’s someone smugly drinking ice-cold water from a colorful metal water bottle while side-eyeing the disposable plastic bottle in your hand." "Hydro Flask has recently found broader popularity among millennials, Gen Zers and VSCO girls alike." "There are real, tangible reasons people are going crazy for these bottles." (goes into much more detail on this).

USA Today: (This one is not the subject of the article but it still attests to the popularity) "When we tested water bottles this year, the Hydro Flask was one of our favorites. Not only is it a fantastic water bottle, but it is also extremely trendy."

Links are provided in the article's references.

mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article primarily repeats the company's advertising. The fact hat the advertising is found in the purportedly editorial content of sources does not justify it. I accept that you had no promotional intent, but we judge by the nature of the article, not the intent. It might be possible to write an acceptable article on this, but I suggest that you are more likely to do it by starting over. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to edit the article, and remove the rest of the origin story whose source can only be the promotional self-serviing statements of the founder, and the absurdly false claim to being the fisrt such bottle for cold liquids. Then I wlll see what is left and decide about AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dgg, what do you think ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.85.63 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Indiexpo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's borderline, but I err more generously when it's still in Draft namespace with regard to CSD. It's still being edited so there seems to be intent to improve it. Thank you. GedUK  10:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GedUK--. Thanks-- I had not noticed it was still being edited. that's why in dealing with new drafts I let someone else check DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, thanks for your speedy review of my article. I've edited it and resubmitted it now, having stripped away anything I would consider advertising and added another source. If you still don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards, let me know what you think or what else I can do to improve it. Although if the current version still isn't acceptable, I don't really know what else I could change. Thank you for the help. Moonrise54 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrise54, yes. the promotionalism is much improved. Unfortunately, every reference is either a notice or a press release. what you need to do is to wait until some true third parties finds the company interesting enough to write about in a substantial way. (This is one of the key differences between the en and deWP.) DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said this article is "basically advertising for a non-notable individual." But he is as equally notable as any other CEO of a fitness brand. SoulCycle, Flywheel, etc.--those founders/CEOs all have individual Wikipedia pages. And I don't understand how it's advertising. The text doesn't go into detail about the company he runs/the services it offers. It's just the bare facts about his background and career. What can be done to fix it? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joey_Gonzalez

Djb2183 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. The guy is a big deal, though, running a major company. He goes on national TV shows and is really well known. If there's really no way to create the page, I'll let it go and move on, but he seems pretty notable to me. Especially in the health and wellness communities, which are enormous. Thanks. Djb2183 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the draft, almost every reference is a press release, or an interview where he says whatever he pleases. None of this are independent. The one reliable source is the NYTimes article, and it is mostly about the general phenomenon. It does discuss the group sufficiently that it seems sufficient to justify the article on Barry's, but not sufficiently about the individual.

Just as a suggestion, considering that one of the two firms you mention is bankrupt, at least in part because of COVID, and the other, with related ownership, is in serious financial difficulties, an addition to the article on Barry's about the extent to which it too has been affected would seem appropriate. One good article is better than two weak ones. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is all making sense. I think I'm getting the hang of what you're saying. Last question: as far as sufficient sourcing for the Gonzalez article goes, I did feel as though several of the articles I cited were authoritative and unbiased and did not rely on his words to portray him. Would you mind adding some more color to what exactly the ideal source would be? This way I can go back out and find the proper articles. Many thanks. And to your point about FlyWheel and SoulCycle, thanks for that as well. I'll start writing/researching some stuff. Djb2183 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, are you ok with us continuing the work on Pretty Nose and commenting in the discussion? The note from ScottyWong says we should stop. Please let me know if I should prioritize my time for that article or one of the many other American Indian articles that went through AfD and would benefit from more sourcing. Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful news on your new family member. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! The Banner talk 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came here to post a Wikipedia message but this news is much more important. Congratulations on expanding your family! A bit of joy during the pandemic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is something. I assume you're going to raise them to be a proper Wikipedian. BD2412 T 01:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, DGG! Re BD2412, another fine Wikipedian would be a welcome addition --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations !!! Celestina007 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it will likely be a few years... DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrat!!! Its a joyous time. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, my friend. Hope everyone is settling in well. StarM 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Kamala. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for the feedback on the 8th Wall topic. I'll make the requested changes and resubmit this week.

Update 10/12/20 -- Hi DGG, I've updated the article and resubmitted for review. I removed all of the blog sites and PR-like articles, keeping only the TechCrunch and VentureBeat references that establish the organizational info. Both were written by staff editors and are independent. I significantly expanded the section on use cases of the 8th Wall platform, giving references to public art exhibits, murals, virtual concerts, and fashion exhibits from NY Times, USA Today, Vogue, and RollingStone. I'm prefer not to write more on the topic directly due to COI, and so I added a stub for others to make the topic more complete when it moves back to article-space. Please let me know if you have any additional feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikmurphyc (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: I see this was closed for delete. I was wondering if you plan to write a new, small article on Zvi Sever? I really wouldn't want to lose it. There is a couple of people happy to do it. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: It looks as you will be busy for a while. I give you a shout in a week or so. scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, This is an easy one to answer: No, I was not planning to work on it. In fact, I would advise against doing so until there are further publications: it's in my opinion borderline. If he is indeed notable as. scientist, he will do further work. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon @DGG: Indeed. I thought he was non-notable in the first place, more so as I couldn't locate any details in the faculty director of the Tel Aviv university, , but still wouldn't wanted to lose it, if I'd made a mistake. Good result on the Pretty Nose article scope_creep^Talk 11:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Change guidance about indexing in bibliographic databases to be open to non-MEDLINE indexed journals? might benefit from your advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG,

I've been on G13 patrol for a little over a week and have noticed quite a few drafts you have rescued from deletion as stale drafts. I think that is awesome! But I also noticed the large number of editors listed as participants at AFC and I think that you shouldn't be shouldering this burden alone.

Do you think you might convince a few of the AfC regulars to glance over User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon or User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting once a day and pull out any promising drafts? There is also Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions for drafts closest to G13 status but there are thousands of drafts in this category which can be overwhelming while the SDZeroBot pages are moderately sized and G13 soon sorting is arranged by topic which can be handy.

I think that editors who regularly evaluate submitted drafts for their quality would be better judges of article potential than myself. Just a thought. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I I have no effective way of persuading people except by example. (and sometimes giving problems a little publicity, as you are helping me do now)

It's a problem designing the best strategy. Having several different way & people reviewing the same material is in principle good. Whether something is worth saving is a matter of judgment, and we all differ in this, which is desirable. Often, it is impossible to predict without actually working on an article whether it can in fact be rescued, and nobody has ever been able to accurately predict what will pass AfD. Experience is of limited usefulness when confronting a chaotic process . But all the methods are especially inefficient because half of the material is absolutely hopeless and should have been removed long before the 6 months. We have no mechanism for doing that except MfD, but a few reviewers inist on keeping because they think its better to let everything simply wait the 6 months--they may not be realizing how much it clogs up the system. BTW, Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions is not as overwhelming as it looks, because they're arranged in chronological order. The ones closest to the month's end come first, about 2 days per page of 200.

There are also a few other devices, like deleting more liberally as G1, G2, G3, and deleting duplicates by G6. We're both admins; I almost always nominate and let another admin delete, but I'll do it myself if it's truly obvious, especially in draft. . DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On September 30, you speedily deleted Lido Learning. An article with the same name has been created. You might want to see if it's the same article that you previously deleted; I don't have access to the deleted article but the editor who created it was involved in the deletion discussion linked above. ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I was just wondering if you get the time could you look at something. I live in the area devastated by Hurricane Laura and then affected by Hurricane Delta. Communications are still down as of this date. I sign in from time to time from my cell phone and I have never had an issue. Because of the disruption I used my AT&T service as a Hotspot to use my laptop and found I was blocked from editing even though logged in. I actually tried to send you a request and found my talk page was locked. It seems my cell phone was using an IP address. Being logged in I had no reason to even consider any concerns.  Over a long period of time, using my cell phone, I investigated and found the email for Stewards so sent a message asking to be unblocked,  In the email I included: "My editor user name is otr500. I have been IP blocked: Start of block: 13:51, August 2, 2019Expiry of block: 12:51, November 2, 2020.  IP address is 63.246.153.118 and the blocked range is 63.246.153.0/24.Per the above the Block ID is number is 225967. Martin Urbanec‬ was apparently the Admin.", including "Contact message IP block: Ticket #2020092610009906", and requested an unblock. I received a reply "Please provide the exact error message you get." so sent the information again.", and eventually my request was reviewed and I received the following: 
"Thank you for reaching out to us. I have reviewed your request, and granted your English Wikipedia account the IP Block Exemption user right. The only reason you were targeted by a block was because it appears a VPN/Proxy or similar software is being used. Because sockpuppets use this to hide their location and abuse their rights, we have to block them. Normally I would ask for more information about why you are using a VPN to edit as editors are not normally entitled to edit via a VPN. That said, given your current situation, I can think of a few reasons it would be possible. Also given your edit history, I decided to skip it altogether. For now you have been granted an exemption for 1 month. If you are still affected by the same block at the end of that time, we can discuss further about what is going on and get clarifications to those questions.

Sincerely, AmandaNP"

I do not even know about a VPN as that is even disabled on my cell phone. Apparently I have received a temporary reprieve (1 month) and that may work but we still do not have the internet. Back in 2010 (I think) I was somehow blocked and the Admin couldn't find the reason so unblocked me and stated if I ever have another issue I could be issued an IP block exemption that I assume would be permanent. I consider (subjective) myself a trusted editor that would never knowingly do anything to harm Wikipedia. This has been unnerving because if I am logged in I "assumed" my actions could be tracked no matter what. I am just wondering, if you get the time, could you look into this and possibly provide some advice.
Sincerely, Otr500 (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a bit into this subject that you moved to draft, written by a blocked user. This review and the detailed bio (ext link in the draft for now) suggest she is notable and can be sourced. Do you have access to jstor, and can check there yourself? - Quite generally, I don't like biographies in draft space, where authority control doesn't work. Tagging for lack of sources might be an alternative, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more, but really have a few other things to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look, but my current practice is that I do not move material written by a blocked user into mainspace unless I can verify it myself, and I am interested enough to do so. In this case there's a special factor; she is one of the man women who collaborated with their husbands in work for which the husband was being paid and had the academic title. At least she was named co-author. The relative contributions are not always clear--in cases I do know about, it can run the entire spectrum, and some of the ones I thought I knew about have been subject ot revision. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reservation. How about making the article a redirect to her husband then, perhaps even merge the bit of content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was planning to do. I'm very glad to have your support. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you submitted the current draft for review, did you forget that you had put another neutral BLP of Reiss in article space a few months ago? You submitted a draft that was essentially the same as the article because it appears that you were competing with yourself.  ??Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, at least I seem to have judge the same way consistently. I'll clean it up. But actually, there is so much pressure to keep up with the screening that I judge each draft as I see it, and I do not necessarily remember what I approved in the past. What we need is a way of automatically indicating which drafts have been approved, because people submit duplicates for various reasons, sometimes deceptively, as in after a draft get correctly declined, submitting the exact same thing as an article. . When it seems likely, I check manually. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I've edited Draft:Cri6 and I would be incredibly grateful if you can spare few minutes to review it (Artinnit (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

not my field. And it is considered inappropriate to make a special request for review, but rather wait for the normal process. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer your advise or opinion on this draft. This is my first AFC and a few of us have worked on it. I have a list of notable Florida and southern USA racers that I feel fit the guidelines. I started with this one. Floridaracingnews (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not my field. And it is considered inappropriate to make a special request for review, but rather wait for the normal process DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I wasn’t asking to jump the line for approval or rejection, just was looking for a layout opinion and citation opinion. Thanks for your guidance I will wait for a formal review. Floridaracingnews (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and I might have commented, except I know absolutely nothing about hte entire subject area. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find the draft of this page that was removed in July/August. If this file has been deleted, please explain why that occurred, and Wikipedia's policy on that. This is very important, it is a high quality writeup, and I would like to have it on my hard drive. Thank you. Lord Milner (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found it, and it is now at Draft:Public Oversight (United States). Looking at it, it's an essay, with a conclusion that amounts to original research, and in my opinion not likely to be a suitable Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I would like to ask you and get some advice in order to solve the current issue with speedy deletion.

Notability requires such high standards for companies like MIDAS IT, small-medium companies which are not very popular in western countries and lacks in independent sources compared to huge companies. In fact, this is my second trial of posting MIDAS IT WP and it had more than 1000 words in it without reliable sources. I admitted that, so I let the content go. However, if this short page has to be deleted due to lack of high-quality references, then I guess this company has very little chance ever to get a page in Wiki, until it is noticed by western journalists, who speaks english. I totally understand the reason administrator upgraded standards, however not every eastern company can afford such high-quality references. I would appreciate if you give me some suggestions, how such companies can maintain their WP without fancy high quality independent solid references.

As you said there are thousands of WP that were uploaded earlier and now should be edited or deleted. We have seen such pages more than years and they were never requested for speedy deletion. They are taking all kinds of advantages from having WP, however did not get any cautions of updating references nor speedy deletion. I guess this is a impartiality problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilee0915 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilee0915, It is a problem of there not being enough skilled & motivated people to do the actual work of raising standards. Each article has to be considered individually, to see if it can be rescued. I've been working on this for 11 years, along. with a few dozen others. We are barely enough to keep up with the current inflow. I occasionally have the energy to work on a small batch of older articles in a topic, always in the realization of possible angry complaints. The work is neither easy nor pleasant, and we are volunteers, doing it because it is necessary for the encyclopedia we care about . Over time, 13 million items have been deleted. Myself, I've deleted 46,000.[1]. If you want to improve things, become a regular contributor, learn the rules, observe the practices, become respected for your positive contributions, and after a few months you'll be able to actually help, instead of complaining about lack of impartiality. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG.

I usually write Wikipedia pages about Professors and Academics. You have been helping me around here and there. So I thought of brining this query to you. What are some of the most important academic awards that do not have a Wikipedia page? For instance, the IEEE Medal of Honor is an important academic award, but it already has a page. Does a list exist somewhere on Wikipedia where I can find the awards that we really should have articles about? What is a good structure for the page of an award?HRShami (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general practice is that if the award has been established for more than a few years, and if most (or, even better, almost all,) of the people who have received it are notable enough to have WP bios, thenthe award should have a page. It is often very difficult to find true substantial third party sources, but it is always possible to find the web page forthe award, and the mentions of it it articles about it being awarded, so in practice it can be an exception to GNG. The logic is a little circular, for once we have the article on the award, it can act as at least an indication of probable notability , but normally only the highest level national award in a profession is enough to prove notability by WP:PROF. Challenged articles on awards can be brought to AfD--some are kept, some deleted. The use of anaward to show notability is idscussed in the individuall afds, or sometimes at WT:NPROF, of the talk pages for the various wikiprojects.

As you have notice, the award you mentioned is, (1) the highest level award of the major international society in a very broad field, and (b) there are pages for everyone who has been awarded it. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is there some list where I can find the awards that should have a Wikipedia page? Or do you have some Awards you would like to see pages of? I only want to write about Awards in Academics.HRShami (talk)

Also, can you please take a look at this. On this page, the members are listed according to alphabetical order, but if we list them alphabetically, there is not difference between a list page and a category page? Should I organize them based on year the membership was awarded?HRShami (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for looking at Draft:Wadih al-Maskin. I answered your question on the page itself. Hope that is the correct place.S713 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! In honor of Wikidata's 8th birthday earlier this month, we especially encourage lightning talks related to Wikidata and Wikidata adjacent projects and tools. We'll also discuss the recent proposal to change the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, including the Statement of Opposition from Wikimedia NYC. Wednesday October 21 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• John Kuriyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Malaysianboy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi DGG. I'm following up on an OTRS report about paid editing. The trail leads to 6-12 articles of which John Kuriyan is one. In April you restored the paid editing tag after another editor removed it. The person who removed the tag doesn't seem to be in the gang I am following. My guess is that the tag is there due to the edits of User:Malaysianboy3 who is indef blocked due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alok433. Reviewing the article, it is hard for me to see any bad effects of the COI. This innocuous addition of references is Malaysianboy3's only edit. John Kuriyan himself is clearly notable. Can you say what it would take to persuade you that the COI tag is no longer needed? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is written in an unfortunate manner, with many low quality additions of different sorts over many year, and claims of coi from elsewhere. I was about to say that , there is no way to persuade me that a tag about undeclared paid editing is not needed. but there is one: I might rewrite the article eventually, or someone else might get there sooner. . DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Hope you are doing well. I wanted to understand the reason for the ICICI securities page to be deleted. There is no intention of promoting the business with the words used or the manner in which it has been drafted. The language used for the content of the page has been written while keeping in mind Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I have put across our best attempt to meet the relevant criteria for content on Wikipedia. I would request you to let me know what can be done best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathsarathi (talk • contribs) 05:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being deleted for being promotional , but it could equally well have been deleted under Speedy deletion criterion G5, essentially identical to an article deleted at AfD , I have compared the two versions, and they are almost identical. The community makes the decision, and it decided to delete it. My role is to enforce that decision, and that's what I am doing. Responding to an AfD deletion by entering the same article as a draft and then moving it to mainspace is an attempt to circumvent the community. It is not what would be expected of a good faith editor, but rather a promotional editor with an undeclared COI. Since this is your only substantial contribution, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. . DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG,

There is kind of a mystery going on and I'm hoping you could point me in the right direction. Before I regularly started checking stale drafts a little over a month ago, I'd look at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions and see that there were typically a couple thousands drafts appearing in the category for drafts that had not been edited since 5 and 6 months ago. Then, when I did start working on tagging, removing or deleting G13s in mid-September, there were over 5,000 drafts appearing in the category and that was considered a backlog. Slowly, the number of old drafts has decreased and is now just around 440 415! For a month's worth of drafts that haven't been edited since April 25-May 25, 2020!

I can't figure out what happened back in May to cause such a drastic reduction in the regular aging of old drafts. Is there a sudden influx of help at AfC and more drafts are being actively reviewed and edited? Were there fewer new drafts being created in the late Spring? Is there a problem with the bot categorizing draft pages? User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon still shows around 200 drafts every day reaching their 6 month period of dormancy so it seems to be an issue with the AFC G13 category right now or it was a sudden change in editor behavior around May. I don't know who or what bot is in charge of tagging drafts so that they would appear in the AFC G13 soon category when they are eligible.

Any thoughts on what could be happening? Some global quarantine change in editors creating new drafts? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at the WT:AFC page. It does not seem to be a change in editor behavior, or in admin behavior in doing deletions.. There are several other tracking categories I want to check. I am trying to figure out if there is some sort of equivalent method. I need to more critically examine the ones that have been added to see if thee is some clue. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update Liz, This is the apparent side effect of a deliberate use of the bot for a particular task . I have blocked the bot pending clarification--See it's talk page and the AfC talk page DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I actually don't think that the bot removing drafts taken from main space was the problem. Like I said, I've been working in this area for about six weeks and each night, User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon has consistently listed around 250 drafts coming to G13 status in 7 days. That number can fluctuate between about 200 and 350 drafts and out of that total number you, and a few other AfC editors, remove about 20-25 drafts from each day's list that you see as having potential. But the quantity of drafts listed each night has kept within that 200-350 daily range and removing some drafts taken from mainspace, like SDZeroBot did last week, hasn't affected the number of drafts very much.

It's Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions which has emptied out in a big way. I have asked SD0001 why the SDZeroBot/G13 soon list and the G13 eligible soon category list vary so enormously but they haven't had an answer. Since I've been looking at this since mid-September, the category has always had just a fraction of eligible drafts that the SDZeroBot has found (which have all looked valid to me). I'm not sure what bot is placing drafts in the G13 eligible soon category but it's missing quite a few that SDZeroBot finds each night. It's the categorizing bot that seems to be acting up, not SDZeroBot. You can argue that the decision to remove the drafts taken from main space and put them into new categories wasn't well thought-out but I don't think that act is what affected the G13 eligible soon category. That's still a mystery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, thanks for (re-)instating the article on S. George Philander, who most certainly meets the criteria for notoriety, being in the U.S. National Academy (and two others), having received multiple major scientific prizes, published papers and books, and more such. Now, did you remove all the other material that I painstakingly pieced together, about his Life, Research, Professional Recognition, and so on? From the revision history it seems like you made many small edits, but then all of that disappeared. I provided many external references for my material, even sought out the biography of his father to check out the details on his early years (and linked to the source—I know Afrikaans), and used an official part of Philander's biography issued by Princeton's Dean of the Faculty, written by Philander's colleagues—I am one of them. For these reasons I really would like to reinstate much or all of that material, but I want to check in with you first that I am not misinterpreting why you removed it—or even that it was you who did. Sincerely thanks. Fritsebits (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was all copied from another source. All material in WP must be available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, which permits anyone in the world to copy use modify and distribute all of our content, provided only it retains attribution to the original material in Wikipedia, which permits further distribution on the same terms. -- see[ [WP:COPYRIGHT]] You cannot copy or even closely paraphrase Princeton's bio into Wikipedia, because Princeton owns the copyright--their relevant web page https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/samuel-george-h-philander] "© 2020 The Trustees of Princeton University", and it can be assumed the copyright in the Emeritus Booklet is similarly owned. The appropriate legal office at Princeton would have to give us not merely the right to use it, but they would have to license it into a free license the same or compatible with ours. Only they can do it, not you, and they must do it explicitly. The procedure for this is on the page linked above, as explained further in WP:DCM.

This is one of our fundamental operating rules, and part of our terms of use.

Before I deleted the material, I first tried to rewrite it to make the copying less obvious, but I soon saw the entire article was so interwoven with copyright material, that there was no choice but to leave only the skeleton, and the names of the principal publications -- which are facts, and not subject to copyright. I have now also deleted the copyvio versions from public view, as I am required to do as an administrator.

The only possible course is for you or someone else to rewrite the material, making reference to the source for it, but writing it in your own words and arrangement. Since he is so highly notable, I might do some of this myself when I have the time. Academic bios are my specialty here, but I have a list of several hundred that need work. (In rewriting, I point out that what alerted me to the likelihood of copyvio was that some of the material consisted of personal reflections, which are highly appropriate in a tribute from his colleagues, but not suitable in an encyclopedia article.)

I do mention that the review by the previous reviewer was altogether in erorr, for they did not recognize that the material fell under the specific provisions WP:PROF not the general guideline, WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]

Hi, could you point me to the MOS that says the lead should use the same form of company name as in the title? I've seen the legal suffix being used everywhere on almost every article about companies and assumed this was standard. See Google, Walmart, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen Group, BP etc. all of which use the legal suffix (varies across countries) in the lead. Prolix 💬 18:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sure. WP:LEAD. section 3.3.1 . DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm not sure which one of the specific guidelines under that section you're referring to. I did see this specific line there though, Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead. Which would suggest that we need not repeat the common name of the company unless it is significantly different from the legal name. Do let me know what your thoughts are regarding this. Prolix 💬 10:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the very first, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC) ��[reply]

I agree, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence and accordingly it is in the article, but clearly that doesn't mean that the title has to be used verbatim. Prolix 💬 05:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's rare for me to argue about a title, but " clearly" it means just what it says.

I shal lwt others deal with the article if they care to. The subject is closed here. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for your opinion on this issue. Prolix 💬 06:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and you were the one who declined my article. Could you do me a small favour and tell me the errors and how to work it out. I couldn't understand the entire meaning when I read in my userpage.You can also do necessary edits yourself if you please. This is really important for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin7177 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, our messages need some major revision. The basic problem is that Indian newspapers include media stars at the urging or PR companies--and sometimes requiring payment from them, so there is not much in the way of truly reliable sources. What is needed is-some real reward accepted on an international basis. The "Golden Creator Award a" is just given by subscriber count, and there have repeat decisions here that this does not show notability . There may be nothing to do until they become more famous. But if you can find one more halfway decent source , add it and resubmit. another reviewer will judge. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some example of sources I can use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin7177 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted my article that you had declined earlier. I request you to view it and check if it is valid for resubmission. It is my strong belief that the article's subject is worthy of having an article of it's own, as there have been many past attempts to create this article. I request you to comment on it. I accept the fact that certain advertising was displayed, and I have made sure that necessary edits are undergone. Please comment on the changes and if any more are needed. --Assassin7177 (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(this is about Draft:Karikku�). (same editor as Atlantis77177 )

As you had advised me, I added new sources to my article. I have also removed all statements that sounded like an advertisements. I request you to unofficially review my article and give me your valuable comments. I apologize for disturbing you, but this article is very important for me--Assassin7177 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please tell me what you meant by "this article is very important to me". DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are personal, but I assure you that neither am I directly related to the creator, nor am I paid for this. If you check my references, you can see that Youtube Creation Chairman of India praised the Malayalam content uploads and this channel has a good role to play in it.--2402:3A80:1922:34EF:1122:1682:4804:3E7A (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is about Draft:Karikku�

I have added LinkedIn, IMDb and Filmibeat as sources. Are they reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis77177 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Linkedin and IMDb contain user-generated content, and the community does not consider them reliable for the purposes of notability. I have no experience with the other site, but according to [2],item 16, the community does not consider it reliable for film. . These are not my decisions, but the community; the community discussions are where the decisions are made to decide, and I am required to follow those decisions. From the same page, it seems that the community considers International Business Times and Financial Express to considered reliable for monetary information about films DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a modified AFCH script to accept articles? You accepted this article about twelve hours ago, and it says that it was recently accepted and is awaiting closure by the reviewer. Or have you kept it in some sort of review after mostly accepting it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After you cleared my doubts, I have not asked you anything. I apologize for the misunderstanding--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my recent article submission has been rejected ( please tell, What can I fix in this article? Are the sources unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]